Salt-N-Pepa File Notice of Appeal over UMG Lawsuit Dismissal, with ‘Blurred Lines’ Lawyer as Counsel

Why It Matters

The case tests the scope of Section 203 termination rights and could reshape how legacy artists renegotiate control and royalties for decades‑old catalogs.

Key Takeaways

• Appeal challenges judge’s finding of no copyright ownership
• Termination dates target May 15, 2024 under Section 203
• Richard S. Busch joins Salt‑N‑Pep­a’s legal team
• UMG claims lawsuit was baseless, seeks settlement
• Catalog remains unavailable on U.S. streaming platforms

Pulse Analysis

The dispute centers on Section 203 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which permits artists to terminate prior transfers of sound‑recording copyrights after a 35‑year period. Salt‑N‑Pep­a served termination notices in March 2022, aiming to reclaim ownership of hits such as “Push It” once the statutory date of May 15, 2024 arrived. Their claim hinges on whether the original 1986 agreements gave them any copyright interest to begin with. A district judge concluded the duo never held the rights, dismissing both the termination and conversion claims, prompting the current appeal.

The appeal introduces veteran litigator Richard S. Busch, known for high‑profile copyright battles including the Marvin Gaye estate’s victory in the “Blurred Lines” case. Busch’s experience may sharpen arguments about the legal effect of the 1986 “inducement letter” and whether it constitutes a direct grant from the artists to Next Plateau. Courts have been split on interpreting early recording contracts, and a favorable ruling for Salt‑N‑Pep­a could set a precedent that expands termination rights for artists whose catalogs were transferred through intermediary entities rather than directly by the performers.

Should the Second Circuit reverse the dismissal, Salt‑N‑Pep­a could regain control of a catalog that generates roughly $1 million in sync fees over five months and tens of millions annually. A reversal would also pressure major labels to reassess legacy agreements, potentially leading to new settlement frameworks and more transparent royalty structures. Conversely, an upheld dismissal would reinforce label dominance over historic recordings, keeping the duo’s early works off U.S. streaming services and limiting artists’ leverage in future negotiations. The outcome will be closely watched by legacy artists and music‑industry executives alike.